A Father v A Mother (Appeal) (Child Arrangements and Non-Molestation Orders) [2025] EWHC 229 (Fam) (05 February 2025)

A Father v A Mother (Appeal) (Child Arrangements and Non-Molestation Orders) [2025] EWHC 229 (Fam) (05 February 2025)

The appeal was dismissed because the judge's findings of fact and discretionary decisions were fully reasoned, supported by the evidence, and within the generous ambit of judicial discretion. There was no procedural unfairness or appearance of bias, the children's welfare justified the orders made, and the legal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 229 (Fam)
Parties
Appellant: A Father; First Respondent: A Mother; Second Respondent: C; Third Respondent: D; Fourth Respondent: CAFCASS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused on all grounds.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements Order, Non Molestation Order, Recusal of Judge, Section 91(14) Orders, Domestic Abuse, Children's Wishes and Feelings
Family Law Child Arrangements Order Non Molestation Order Recusal of Judge Section 91(14) Orders Domestic Abuse Children's Wishes and Feelings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Father

Appellant

A Mother

First Respondent

C

Second Respondent

D

Third Respondent

CAFCASS

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in making a non-molestation order against the father
  2. 2 Whether the judge should have recused herself for bias or appearance of bias
  3. 3 Whether the child arrangements order (no face-to-face contact) was justified and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge's findings of fact and discretionary decisions were fully reasoned, supported by the evidence, and within the generous ambit of judicial discretion. There was no procedural unfairness or appearance of bias, the children's welfare justified the orders made, and the legal requirements for non-molestation and s91(14) orders were met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused on all grounds.

Orders

  • Non-molestation order against the father upheld
  • Child arrangements order (no face-to-face contact except indirect contact initiated by children) upheld